I am what I am – and what I am needs no excuses….

Menu

Archives

This is not satire, Luvs. In fact, I really wish it were satire, but nonetheless it has had me in tears and pissing myself laughing.

The US conservative Christian group, One Million Moms, infamous for their homophobia and taking on Ellen DeGeneres and Modern Family, now have a new target in their sights; The Muppets.

The new ABC show, which is an adult-targeted spin-off of the 1970s shows Sesame Street and The Muppet Show has come under attack from 1MM – because Kermit the Frog doesn’t wear any pants. I kid you not, you read that correctly. 1MM are claiming the new show, which is actually aimed at adults on a nostalgia kick, rather than kids, is immoral and perverted.

“1MM (One Million Moms) suspects there are going to be a lot of shocked moms and dads when they discover that the family-friendly Muppets of the 1970s are no more. It appears that no subject is off limits,” state the group in a petition calling for TV network ABC to cancel the show, “Kermit doesn’t wear pants. The puppet characters loved by kids in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond are now weighing in on abortion and promiscuity. Many parents unknowingly will let their children watch an episode only to find out its perverted nature too late, unless they are alerted ahead of time. 1MM and others need to get the word out to families to avoid this program at all costs.“

Okay, to use a wide old Scots saying, haud the bus. Firstly, Kermit has NEVER worn pants. Not in Sesame Street, not in The Muppet Show, not ever. If they’ve only just noticed that now, then given that two generations have now grown up loving Kermit and the rest of the Muppets (I adored Gonzo), they’re more than a tad bloody late.

Secondly, the ABC show is not aimed at children at all. It is aimed at an adult audience who are nostalgic for the Muppets. Storylines are to include Kermit’s break-up with Miss Piggy and Fozzie having a relationship with a woman.

ABC have made it perfectly clear that the new show is aimed at adults, by airing an ad for it with Kermit stating “Finally, a network TV show with full frontal nudity.”, which is no doubt what got 1MM’s backs up in the first place. It is then up to parents to prevent children from watching the new show, not down to 1MM or any other moralists to seek to ban it and prevent others from watching it.

But then, it is nothing new. The Muppet Show of the late 1970s was not aimed purely at children either. It was a spin-off of Sesame Street, meant for adults and children alike, and actually contained a good deal of innuendo from characters and many guests alike, as well as some risque comments among the heckling from Statler and Waldorf.

Where’s HIS pants?

No doubt 1MM would like a return to wholesome American values of the past, when there were children’s characters like, ermm, Donald Duck – who went about in a jacket, a sailor’s had and guess what? NO PANTS. Same with Winnie the Pooh. Would 1MM then ban anything by A A Milne? Know what? I honestly reckon they would.

That’s before we even get onto America’s favourite drag queen, Bugs Bunny, who very often appeared dressed as a woman, and even flirted with Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam in a number of cartoons.

And just what did the vast majority of these cartoons show children? Characters beating up and bombing each other, thereby teaching children that problems can be solved by violence. Strangely enough, I do not hear 1MM complaining about that. Of course not; violence in children’s shows has nothing to do with the conservative Christian obsession with the human body and sex, both of which they see as dirty and sinful.

Puppet shows have contained adult references since the art form began. And they and cartoons are but extensions of many children’s stories and nursery rhymes which have very adult undertones and origins. Just what do you imagine Jack and Jill were doing up that hill? And of course, there is NOTHING at all suggestive about Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf – or her being rescued by the axeman with his huge chopper, is there?

And children’s shows have always and always shall contain moments of adult humour, thrown in for mum and dad to get a harmless giggle at. Very few kids will even understand these references, and will wonder what their parents are suddenly splurting their tea and laughing at. Such as this classic moment from Warner Bros cartoon Animaniacs, which is a particular favourite of mine:

Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, USA has been jailed for Contempt of Court for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, despite it being part of her job to do so. As she is an elected official, she could not be dismissed from her post.

Mrs Davis consistently refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, stating that her religious beliefs as a Christian prevented her from doing so.

One gay couple managed to capture her on camera stating that she would not issue them with a marriage licence. She then continued to refuse to marry same-sex couples. When told she must, she stopped issuing licences altogether, arguing that by doing so she was not discriminating against anyone, but continued to draw her salary. She even appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating her religious freedom meant she did not have to issue same-sex marriage licences. They refused to issue her a stay. Earlier this year the US government ruled that all states must recognise and comply with same-sex marriage.

On 3 September US District Judge Dave Bunning found her Guilty of Contempt of Court for failing to comply with several orders, including one he had issued, and placed her in the custody of Federal Marshalls. Davis had said earlier she was prepared to go to jail over the matter.

Three Deputy Clerks in the same office have likewise been ordered to comply with same-sex marriage, or they too shall be jailed.

Kim Davis and her deputies are trying to claim that as they are devout Christians, forcing them to issue same-sex marriage licences is an infringement of their First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of religion. They do not appear to be too intelligent, as they are failing to realise that by refusing to issue such licences, they are enforcing their beliefs upon same-sex couples and are thereby infringing their First Amendment rights.

It is doubly damning as they are employed in public office posts, and the US Constitution guarantees a wall between church and state. Davis and her cohorts were therefore acting totally illegally and unconstitutionally by refusing to issue same-sex marriage licences by basing their actions on religious belief.

Kim Davis and her deputies of course base their beliefs and actions upon what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, in the Book of Leviticus;

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV)

Notice here that this verse mentions sexual relations between men. Neither this verse nor any part of Levirate Law says anything about two men (or two women) marrying. Indeed, contrary to what the bigots may think and try to claim, nowhere in the Bible does one find marriage defined as one man / one woman. In fact there is no definition of any kind of marriage anywhere in the Bible.

Kim Davis and her deputies therefore could easily have issued marriage licences for same-sex couples without for one moment compromising their deeply held religious beliefs. That they refused to do so can only mean they are either ignorant of the Bible, hiding behind the Bible to promote their own homophobia, or far more likely, both.

Levirate Law, in the very same chapter of Leviticus, has plenty to say on the question of adultery, however;

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, KJV)

And why do I bring the question of adultery up, dears? Well, let’s just have a look at the track record of the oh-so-pious and righteous Kim Davis;

She married her first husband, and then had twins fathered by another man.

She divorced her first husband, and married another man, who was not the father of the twins, but who adopted them.

She then divorced her second husband and married the father of her children.

She then divorced her third husband and remarried her second husband.

So much for the sanctity of marriage. So much for being a ‘good Christian’ and adhering to the Bible. Seems to Kim Davis that it’s okay to discriminate against gays, yet she herself has flouted the selfsame law – on several occasions – which she claims prevents her from marrying same-sex couples.

It’s called hypocrisy, Kim dear, which is one more reason I am happy to see you rot in jail and I do hope a hefty fine follows. Step down from your job, Luv; you are obviously unfit to hold it.

In the wake of the US Supreme Court declaring that all 50 states in the USA must recognise same-sex marriage, the entire staff of Decatur County (Tennessee) Clerk’s Office have announced their resignations.

Clerk Gwen Pope and her employees Sharon Bell and Mickey Butler announced their resignations on religious grounds, with Ms Pope (oh the irony) first claiming that it wasn’t for publicity but then stating “It’s for the glory of God. He’s going to get all the glory.”

Well dears, I certainly am not going to shed any tears for Ms Pope, who has been Clerk since 2008, or her two underlings. In fact, they have done Decatur County, the state of Tennessee and the USA a favour by jumping before they were pushed.

In most civilised, developed countries today, showing prejudice in your place of employment is frowned deeply upon, and in some countries it is against the law. There are few nowadays who would show prejudice on the grounds of binary gender, race, ethnicity, creed, colour, physical / mental disability, social class, income, or many other criteria. Sexuality and alternative gender should then be no different.

As one who has worked in customer services, I am disgusted that anyone should allow their prejudices to interfere with their work. In any public-facing role, there are two rules; 1, you treat every customer not as equals, but you do not allow any personal feelings to make any distinctions between customers; 2, the most important customer is whosoever you serve. In other words, you treat everyone with respect. And anyone who allows prejudices, whether they be religious-based or not, is neither following the above rules, nor treating customers with respect.

Anyone who does neither is not fit to be in a public-facing role.

Asides from the above, given that this ruling took place in the USA, if the three are not willing to grant marriage licences on religious grounds, then they would be contravening the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I don’t know if they think that the USA is a Christian country, and frankly I do not care whether they do or not. The facts say different. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the USA, which is by law a secular state with a wall between church and state. Therefore, if this three allowed their faith to interfere with their state employment, then they are doubly unfit for the offices they held. In fact, by contravening the First Amendment, they would in fact be committing a criminal offence.

I’ll go further, and publicly call the Clerk’s Office staff out as being hypocrites to their own Christian faith. Ms Pope has been in her job for seven years. It is probable she employed the other two.

They claim to be resigning over same-sex marriage on religious grounds, because it contravenes the Bible (as they interpret it). Really? Well, one wonders just how many divorcees they have married? And what does the Bible have to say about that? “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.“ (Luke 16:18, KJV).

And of course there is one thing we can be more than fairly sure of in this day and age, that the overwhelming vast majority of people getting married have had sex before marriage. And the Bible is very clear about that; “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide (celibate) even as I.But if they cannot contain (their lust), let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9, KJV).

In the USA only a judge can grant divorce. However the process begins by applying to the County Clerk’s Office to get the necessary paperwork or enquire where to get the said paperwork. In doing so therefore the three must have abetted people in gaining divorces, only for the same people to marry others, despite the Bible being very clear on this matter; “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12, KJV)

It is worth noting here that the commandment against homosexuality which conservative Christians always fall back on comes from the Levirate Law of the Old Testament; “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.“ (Leviticus 18:22, KJV), The verses I quote above however come from the New Testament, represent the New Covenant, which was allegedly God’s new message for mankind, and the verses from Luke and Mark allegedly being the words of Jesus Christ himself, the very man who Christians are supposed to worship and follow.

Neither can the Decatur County staff feign ignorance upon this, for Mark chapter 10 contains the very verses which opponents of same-sex marriage fall back on to claim that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman; “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-8, KJV)

We therefore see that the resignations are not “for the glory of God”, but just plain old-fashioned homophobia dressed up as religion, from three bigots who were unfit to hold their posts in the first place, unfit to hold any US governmental posts, and who actually do their faith a disservice than any honour through their blatant hypocrisy.

They have therefore done Decatur County a huge favour by resigning; they have saved Mayor Mike Creasy the trouble of firing them for contravening their terms of employment, and possibly committing criminal acts.

Decatur County Commissioner David Boroughs stated “That’s a personal individual decision, but I strongly support them if their faith is that strong, I’m proud of them that their faith is so strong and well-rounded that they feel they can do that.”

Well, I for one do not share Commissioner Boroughs sentiments. Rather I say good riddance. I hope that the homophobic hate the three are displaying does not go unnoticed by future prospective employers and that they have difficulty finding any future employment in public facing roles.

If that sounds harsh, cold, spiteful, or bitchy, I make no apologies for that dears. I am more concerned about the people who may have to deal with them than three self-righteous bigots who may let their personal prejudice and their faith interfere with the public they deal with. Neither do I care that they have lost their livelihoods, which was their own doing. They took that choice when they decided to put their faith above their employment. They’ve made their beds, now let them lie in them.

It would not look good on a curriculum vitae (what you lovely people across the pond call a resumé) for public roles here in the UK. One can only hope the same applies in the USA.

So outraged was 66-year-old Sylvia Driskell at LGBTQI people in the US media, that she brought a lawsuit against all homosexuals on Earth.

In some sort of bizarre reverse of the Billy Connolly movie The Man who Sued God, Driskell, of Omaha, Nebraska, filed a federal lawsuit against all homosexuals, naming herself as ‘ambassador’ for the plaintiffs, namely “God and His son, Jesus Christ”.

In a seven-page, handwritten suit, Sylvia Driskell stated;

“Your Honor, I’ve heard the boasting of the Defendant: the Homosexuals on the world news; from the young, to the old; to the rich an famous, and to the not so rich an famous; How they were tired of hiding in the closet, and how glad they are to be coming out of the closet.”

…

“I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, Contend that homosexuality is a sin, and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in a closet?”

…

“I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, write, as well, we also know that if a child is raised in a home of liers [sic], and deceivers, and thieves that it is reasonable to believe that child will grow up to be one of the three, are all three.”

…

“I’m sixty six years old, an I never thought that I would see the day in which our Great Nation or Our Great State of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some peoples lewd behavior.

Why are judges passing laws, so sinners can break religious and moral laws?

Will all the judges of this Nation, judge God to be a lier [sic]?”

Oh dear. Poor Sylvia. Her comments would be tragic if they were not so hilarious.

Firstly, one would have thought that an omnipotent deity would have no need of any earthly “ambassador” and that if any such entity wished to punish homosexuals, then he would be perfectly capable of doing so of their own accord. Instead, if God exists, then he seems to have absolutely no problem with having his creation born gay, lesbian, bi, genderqueer, intersex, pansexual, asexual, or in variations in some of these themes.

The closet references are extremely amusing. “Why else would they have been hiding in a closet?” suggests that Ms Driskell actually think that non-outed LGBTQI people actually live in physical closets. Oh if only, dears. Where else would one find fabulous frocks to try on?

The statement concerning children is Facepalm City. “I, Sylvia Ann Driskell, write, as well, we also know that if a child is raised in a home of liers [sic], and deceivers, and thieves that it is reasonable to believe that child will grow up to be one of the three, are all three.” she writes, and of course the inference here is that if a child is brought up in a gay household, that child will also turn out to be gay. Not only does science not bear this out, but how then does she explain exactly where LGBTQI children come from if not from cishet parents, including Christian parents? Seems to me that Ms Driskell is of the Pat Robertson belief, that gays will die out because they can’t multiply.

Well, Judge John Gerrard, hearing the case in Nebraska’s US District Court, lost no time in throwing out Ms Driskell’s case. He told first flatly told her that she had no legal jurisdiction to act as “ambassador” for God and Jesus Christ. He then told Ms Driskell that it is not the business of US courts to decide whether homosexuality is sinful or not.

“The United States Federal Courts were created to resolve actual cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States,” stated Judge Gerrard. “A federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters.”

Some people have too much time and money on their hands. Perhaps Sylvia Driskell should spend both of hers on improving her English spelling, in becoming educated on LGBTQI issues, in learning that a federal court in Omaha does not have the jurisdiction over the entire world (nor does the USA as a whole as she seems to think so), that the USA is a secular republic with a wall between church and state enshrined in the constitution, that an omnipotent God would not need a mortal being to do their bidding – and that if she wants to take the Bible literally, then as a woman she should be silent and subservient and by bringing her fatuous lawsuit, she has in fact blasphemed the very faith she claims to believe in.